Gates: Bombing Iran won’t stop them from getting nukes

posted at 6:17 pm on April 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

Gates told a Senate panel that a military option would only delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions and drive the program further underground, making it more difficult to monitor, he said.

He said the better option would be for the United States and its allies to convince Iran that building a nuclear program would start an arms race that would leave the country less secure.

“Their security interests are actually badly served by trying to have nuclear weapons,” Gates said. “They will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and they will be less secure at the end than they are now.”…

Clinton and Gates told the panel the United States and its allies should pressure Iran with tougher sanctions.

Reminds me of that DA in California announcing publicly that he won’t prosecute people for misdemeanors anymore. I’m sitting here trying to figure out how it’s a good idea for Gates to admit this, but I’m stumped: Even if it’s a bluff and the Pentagon does think it can stop the program, what do we gain by telling Iran we can’t? It doesn’t give us any extra leverage during negotiations. And is he kidding about convincing them that nukes aren’t in their best interest? The risk of a Middle East arms race was long ago priced into their decision to go nuclear, as was the endless sanctions dance in the UN. Short of Obama threatening to actually give nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia and Iraq to check the Iranian threat, what’s left to discuss except buying them off somehow? It’s all carrot, no stick.

Speaking of negotiating with enemies, see for yourself how much the big photo op with Chavez did to change his disposition towards us.

Gates makes me vomit. Downsizing military in the middle of two wars, giving up on Iran, carrying a torch for a far radical president, helping make America weaker. He’s a client of China. He should be tried for treason imo.

The circumstances surrounding the opposition’s interests are of key importance in negotiations. They present the easy starting point. Identify where the opponents considerations and conclusions can be made more in line with yours.

Gates is suggesting that the key here is reminding Iran that a regional arms race makes them less safe, which is true. If that conclusion can be negotiated, more fruitful negotiations are sure to follow.

Dr. Kissinger told us last night at the Manhattan Institute’s function that they went to China and began with this: The 42 Russian divisions on China’s northern border. We knew this was the primary Chinese security concern, and their interests happened to align with ours on that matter. From there, more fruitful negotiations did follow.

Regardless of the endgame, the Iranian issue has not been resolved. The final moves are not yet being forced.

WTF over, no more F22’s, no missile defense, unilateral nuclear disarmament, negotiate with the “good” Taliban, question Israel for its conduct and now let’s admit the Iranians are untouchable….all this in 100 days. Smart power indeed. Good night America, it was fun while it lasted.

Gates is suggesting that the key here is reminding Iran that a regional arms race makes them less safe, which is true. If that conclusion can be negotiated, more fruitful negotiations are sure to follow.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

They don’t care. It’s not about safety.
If it were , we wouldn’t have a problem.

But, Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear capability, and Pakistan is so unstable. So, why would anyone who wants to defend our country choose to reduce defense spending and cut missile defense?

They don’t care. It’s not about safety.
If it were , we wouldn’t have a problem.

the_nile on April 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM

One can be made to care. Im not saying negotiations will necessarily be fruitful, but they are a phase of this crisis that must run its course. China was later made to care about its economic future, and that future’s connection to the western liberal economic order. Again, no promises, but its not like we can at this point justify full scale war.

Even if it’s a bluff and the Pentagon does think it can stop the program, what do we gain by telling Iran we can’t?

Does anyone think that Obama would have given the order? Iran isn’t hearing anything that it already hasn’t assumed to be the case. The only question is whether he would be an active or passive obstacle to Israel taking care of the job.

A country without electrical power in the 21st century is not a threat.
You need electricity to run centrifuges. And to run a nuke program.
The US military can put the hammer down anytime they are tasked. Our AF and Navy are not as engaged as the Army and Marines. The US has the technology to stop Iran cold.

But as Coldwarrior noted: “Do we have the leadership? ” My thoughts — no.

That’s bullshit and Gates knows it. We know where most if not all of their sites are. Destroy those facilities and the mullahs are back to square one in the grand “hidden Imam” apocalyptic plan. Let them rebuild to a certain point then do it again. We could do that for eons.

Gates exhibits exactly the sort of stupidity and cowardice that leads to world wars. It’s all up to Israel, now, after which the West will try to destroy the state. That’s the sort of world we live in.

Lox… remember how Russia was going to take the top of the Arctic pole… read this which came out yesterday.

The read this! Which came out 3-27-09 and check out the first paragraph.

According to the newspaper The Kommersant, Russia is planning on making its Arctic region the country’s main strategic base by 2016. And how does it plan on doing this? By creating Arctic troops whose sole purpose will be maintaining the security of Russia’s section of the Arctic Ocean.

Gates is suggesting that the key here is reminding Iran that a regional arms race makes them less safe, which is true. If that conclusion can be negotiated, more fruitful negotiations are sure to follow.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Clearly Iran cares about regional stability. That’s why it’s funded terrorism in Iraq, talked about wiping a neighbor off the map, and continues to pursue a nuclear program that other nations in the region have strongly condemned. Oh, and it’s so concerned that regional stability could affect its security that it’s taunted Israel to attack it through heated rhetoric and expanding the threat to Tel Aviv’s interests.

One can be made to care. Im not saying negotiations will necessarily be fruitful, but they are a phase of this crisis that must run its course. China was later made to care about its economic future, and that future’s connection to the western liberal economic order. Again, no promises, but its not like we can at this point justify full scale war.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Made to care?? You have got to be kidding me! The only thing they care about is seeing us dead.

Gates IS Bush’s fault! He was appointed by Bush and stayed on. I wrote my congressman when he was nominated and asked him to vote against his confirmation. I didn’t follow up to see if he actually voted against the confirmation, but I doubt it. Everyone said that Gates was so smart and knew what he was doing and I didn’t buy that load of BS in the first place. I just had a bad feeling about Gates from the beginning and now my feeling has proven to be right. I had the same feeling about the “peanut brain” in the 70’s and look at what happened when he became president and gave away the Panama Canal and couldn’t rescue our people from the Iranians.

One can be made to care. Im not saying negotiations will necessarily be fruitful, but they are a phase of this crisis that must run its course. China was later made to care about its economic future, and that future’s connection to the western liberal economic order. Again, no promises, but its not like we can at this point justify full scale war.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

China, even years ago, was quite a different place than Iran is today.

Well once they tell us for sure themselves, then we can begin discussing contingencies in earnest. But as far as approaching negotiations, this is a reasonable start point. If it goes nowhere it goes nowhere, but if negotiations are to go anywhere they’ve gotta start there. Thats all he’s saying. Robert Gates isn’t some patsy fool.

I’m sitting here trying to figure out how it’s a good idea for Gates to admit this, but I’m stumped: Even if it’s a bluff and the Pentagon does think it can stop the program, what do we gain by telling Iran we can’t? It doesn’t give us any extra leverage during negotiations.

All we have to rely on is the force of the Obamessiah’s winning personality.

This is an unbelievably stupid move to make before entering into ‘negotiations’ with Iran. And a terrific f*ck you to Israel.

China, even years ago, was quite a different place than Iran is today.

amerpundit on April 30, 2009 at 6:43 PM

That’s certainly the case, but remember Gates is commenting on strategies withing the framework of initial negotiations. There’s a time and a place for considering the drastic military alternatives, but that time’s not now.

Correct. What I find interesting is they are the only country to both build, then dismantle their efforts, which happened to coincide with anti-aparthied, i.e. blacks would take back power and couldn’t be trusted.

“Their security interests are actually badly served by trying to have nuclear weapons,” Gates said. “They will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and they will be less secure at the end than they are now.”…

Bombing them will only delay them from getting a nuke, and the only solution is diplomacy? The same sort of diplomacy that’s been going on for countless years now with not even the slightest hint of success?

At this point, I’m OK with bombing even if it only delays them for a while. Even if Gates is correct, better they get the bomb later than sooner.

Absolutely the most insane handling of national security and foreign policy I’ve ever witnessed.

Iran sees itself as the protector of the new Caliphate. This sort of thing has popped up now and then in their press over the past several years.

If you look at history, in the former various caliphates and empires, there was diversity among adherents to Islam, so the constant talk of Iran being pariah among the Sunni states is pretty much for show. Imagine from Amritsar in India westward to Casablanca, from Mombasa north to Samarkand…all eyes and hearts pointed in common toward the Qaba’.

Now wrap your minds around this could happen within our lifetimes.

No major wars, no major campaigns of subjugation, just starting with a rough federation of consenting states, building more solid links and agreements among them.

Can’t imagine the Saudis putting their wealth at risk by trying to stop Iran, nor the Gulf States, either.

As the larger states come to agreements and a loose federation, the smaller states will have to go along. It’s a bread and butter issue.

The impetus for all of this?

Iran has the heavy metal…and if things go south in Islamabad, Pakistan as well.

So long as nothing overtly hostile is done by Iran…and this SecDef announcement seems to indicate that from our side nothing overtly hositle will be done, either, then it can be an easy slow slide toward that caliphate.

Other than Israel, I can’t see any other state in the region doing anything physical to stop it, and under this Administration, if Israel did do anything, you can bet the farm that this Administration would let the neighbors take care of the noisy one, keeping our hands clean.

Absolutely the most insane handling of national security and foreign policy I’ve ever witnessed.

Well once they tell us for sure themselves, then we can begin discussing contingencies in earnest. But as far as approaching negotiations, this is a reasonable start point. If it goes nowhere it goes nowhere, but if negotiations are to go anywhere they’ve gotta start there. Thats all he’s saying. Robert Gates isn’t some patsy fool.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:43 PM

He’s basically said that we’ve removed military options from the table. You don’t go into negotiations with your adversary knowing that you have absolutely no intention to do anything other than talk and condemn them if they completely ignore you. You don’t need to threaten them off the bat with air strikes, but you don’t need to remove the presumed back up option.

And from what I’ve seen recently, Gates is a fool. He’s going along with cuts in military programs that field commanders and other military officials believe necessary. He’s setting up the military to be able to fight unconventional forces at the expense of weakening our ability to stave off conventional military threats.

Well then theres our point of disagreement I suppose. There’s no need to telegraph one’s eagerness to go to war. The world knows that should talks break down and a more serious confrontation emerge, that the United States will defend itself.

This was the premise behind most of our nuclear talks with Russia throughout the modern presidencies. Theres a time for the more aggressive posture you favor, but some would argue that the time for that is only clear once other more palatable options have been tried and found unsuccessful.

Saying there will be an arms race in the Middle East would be no deterent for Iran. From their perspective, having nuclear weapons would ensure that their country is safe from conventional warfare and that Israel could not use nuclear blackmail to impose its will on Iran. Nuclear deterent worked for the US and the Soviet Union and would likely work for Iran, too. Personally, I can’t see Iran using nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity, even against Israel, without risking retaliation by the United States. From a security perspective, however, it does somewhat free up Iran’s conventional forces to use as they see fit. In that respect, it might provoke a conventional arms race, but then, that’s nothing new in the Middle East.